Background$/$Context: Pharmabro Ltd$,$ a Mauritian private company involved in the importation and distribution of pharmaceutical products, has been facing severe financial difficulties over the past year. Following numerous creditor petitions and inability to repay its debts as they fall due, the Supreme Court of Mauritius has ordered that Pharmabro Ltd be wound up by the Court under the Insolvency Act. A licensed insolvency practitioner, Mr$.$ Snapes, has been appointed as the liquidator of the company. Soon after his appointment, Mr$.$ Snapes takes the following actions: He dismisses three senior managers suspected of fraudulent activities without consulting the board or the creditors$$ committee. He sells a major company asset $$ a warehouse in Pailles $$ to a company in which his cousin is a director, without seeking independent valuation. He commences legal proceedings against a former director for misfeasance and breach of fiduciary duties. He declines to hold creditors$$ meetings as scheduled, citing $$administrative constraints.$$ He fails to submit the statement of accounts to the Director of the Insolvency Service within the statutory time limit$.$ Question: Critically analyse, with reference to the Insolvency Act $2009,$ whether Mr$.$ Snapes has acted within the scope of his legal duties and powers as a liquidator. Discuss the implications of his actions and the potential remedies available to aggrieved parties. Support your answer with relevant statutory provisions and case law where applicable. use the insolvency act $2009$